North Cornwall
2010 Results:
Conservative: 19531 (41.69%)
Labour: 1971 (4.21%)
Liberal Democrat: 22512 (48.06%)
UKIP: 2300 (4.91%)
Others: 530 (1.13%)
Majority: 2981 (6.37%)
Notional 2005 Results:
Liberal Democrat: 19729 (46.6%)
Conservative: 14252 (33.7%)
Labour: 4825 (11.4%)
Other: 3526 (8.3%)
Majority: 5477 (12.9%)
Actual 2005 result
Conservative: 20766 (37.1%)
Labour: 6636 (11.9%)
Liberal Democrat: 23842 (42.6%)
UKIP: 3063 (5.5%)
Other: 1675 (3%)
Majority: 3076 (5.5%)
2001 Result
Conservative: 18250 (33.8%)
Labour: 5257 (9.7%)
Liberal Democrat: 28082 (52%)
UKIP: 2394 (4.4%)
Majority: 9832 (18.2%)
1997 Result
Conservative: 17253 (29.5%)
Labour: 5523 (9.4%)
Liberal Democrat: 31186 (53.2%)
Referendum: 3636 (6.2%)
Other: 983 (1.7%)
Majority: 13933 (23.8%)
Boundary changes:
Profile:
Current MP: Dan Rogerson(Liberal Democrat) born 1975. Educated at Bodmin College and the University of Wales. Former Liberal Democrat researcher and university admissions officer. Bedford councillor 1999-2002. Contested Bedfordshire North East 2001. First elected as MP for North Cornwall in 2005. Lib Dem environment spokesman 2005-6, local government spokesman 2006-7, Lib Dem shadow minister for arts since 2007 (more information at They work for you)
Sian Flynn (Conservative) Janet Hulme (Labour) Dan Rogerson(Liberal Democrat) born 1975. Educated at Bodmin College and the University of Wales. Former Liberal Democrat researcher and university admissions officer. Bedford councillor 1999-2002. Contested Bedfordshire North East 2001. First elected as MP for North Cornwall in 2005. Lib Dem environment spokesman 2005-6, local government spokesman 2006-7, Lib Dem shadow minister for arts since 2007 (more information at They work for you)Miriel O`Connor (UKIP) Joanie Willett (Mebyon Kernow)2001 Census Demographics
Total 2001 Population: 80509
Male: 48.5%
Female: 51.5%
Under 18: 21.4%
Over 60: 27%
Born outside UK: 3.2%
White: 99.1%
Asian: 0.2%
Mixed: 0.4%
Other: 0.2%
Christian: 75.4%
Full time students: 1.8%
Graduates 16-74: 14.6%
No Qualifications 16-74: 30.4%
Owner-Occupied: 70.8%
Social Housing: 12.8% (Council: 9.7%, Housing Ass.: 3.1%)
Privately Rented: 11.9%
Homes without central heating and/or private bathroom: 15.6%
“I don’t see why taking low-paid workers out of tax should be unpopular with those on the right”
The reason it’s unpopular with many on the right is not that they see lower tax for low-paid workers as a bad thing (indeed, any lower tax is good in their view) but that it may come at the expense of tax cuts for people they would view as wealth creators at the higher end, inheritance tax and things like that.
I supported raising the threshold for the lower paid.
I’m in favour of a wider 10p band.
There is an argument that you shouldn’t
have lots of people who aren’t tax payers atall – then they have no incentive to make sure money is well spent.
Having a low rate that goes quite a long way up and does something serious to improve the lives of those on low pay strikes me as a good way.
Although tax cuts nearly always increase revenue,
(they did in the 80s)
slashing them when the country is already in deficit, whilst you go on spending,
is something no responsible government could do without the markets taking fright and interest rates going up.
But I hope as soon as we balance the books we can get these rates down.
Traditionally those on the right are hostile to all forms of taxation – both indirect and direct – so logically you would expect them to support removing the lowest paid from direct taxation altogether
But that doesn’t seem to be the case with today’s generation of right wing Tories, who as Sir Norfolk says are reluctant to support such redistributive efforts (if you can call it that) at the expense of tax cuts for people they would view not just as wealth creators but the squeezed middle
Edward Leigh, for example, said he was unable to support the government’s hike in tuition fees as the middle classes would bear the brunt of the cut (as a results of the concessions for the lowest paid sought by the Lib Dems and others)
Thats nonsense Tim. Tories of the right (to you perhaps the far right) such as myself are very happy to take on those policies that would remove people from taxation altogether-WHERE IT IS AFFORDABLE.
Seems to me that you folks of the left (be you lib dem or Labour) are somewhat obsessed with defining things as ‘regressive’ or ‘progressive’. Ed Miliband was at it again today.
But these terms mean nothing to ordinary people. They don’t frankly give a damn if a policy is ‘progressive’ or not. All they want to know is how it affects them.
‘Tories of the right (to you perhaps the far right) such as myself are very happy to take on those policies that would remove people from taxation altogether-WHERE IT IS AFFORDABLE.’
You might think that but fellow Tories of a similar mindset clearly disagree with you.
It was Labour MPs who kicked up a fuss about abolishing the 10p tax rate a couple of years back and it was the Lib Dems who pushed to remove low earners income from tax altogether
I don’t remember hearing much from the Tories about these issues – certainly not Tories from your wing of the party, because they recognise that they are not in Parliament to represent low earners
Likewise, it’s Tories from the right (admitedly backed by Labour who are being totally opprtunist on the matter) who are most critical of the government’s plans to abolish child benefit (yes that’s right a ‘benefit’) for the top rate of taxpayers
It’s not often you find Tory right wingers supporting a benefit – unless it’s one which is aimed at helping the rich, which this one is
I somewhat doubt they would have been so rebelious had it been a pledge to close some homeless shelter or to stop benefits for single mothers and so on
The Tories – or rather more specifically Tories on the rigfht – are following the example set by their Republican bedfellows in the US – in opposing anything that seeks to narrow the gap between rich and poor
So hat’s off to the likes of Pete and yourself for at least being consistent on the issue of tax although I think you should ask yourself why fellow right-wing Tories are taking a different tack
I’d like to see a narrower gap between the rich and poor but I don’t necessarily think it’s the government’s job to do it. Those on the left assume the two must always go hand in hand. I think improvements can take place without government action.
Shaun – doesn’t your “where affordable” point simply beg the question?
Affordability is simply a question of what you are prepared to sacrifice in order to achieve the result. So are you willing to take X number of people out of tax at the bottom end if it means Y number of people being brought within the top rate or Z number of top rate taxpayers paying more than they otherwise would?
The answer to that question will always depend on what numbers X, Y and Z are exactly. But they will also depend on your political position on the progressive/regressive debate. In particular the extent to which (if at all) you believe the relatively less well off should pay less as a proportion of income than the relatively well off.
A radical right winger may even believe the relatively well off should pay less proportionately because they pay more absolutely – that position is quite uncommon in this country I would suggest, but the variation is sufficiently great to make it a real issue, and your “where affordable” slogan wholly ducks the issue.
The Conservatives did make it very clear we opposed getting rid of the 10p rate,
and it should get it back when we can afford it.
I understand that in America they do have a much higher tax threshold at the bottom, which does pay to work.
The Tories also have a good record cutting tax between 1979 and 1997 for low earners aswell as the rich (which boosts incentives and enterprise).
The trouble is the previous government ran up such debts that even those of us who pressed for tax cuts a lot around 2007/8 are going to have to wait until the books are balanced.
when I say when affordable, it is because I simply don’t know what the figures are likely to be,
but I would very much hope we could have done something substantial further for people on low pay before the end of the Parliament.
Furthermore to Sir Norfolk’s point, it’s worth remembering that most right-wing Tories don’t go into politics with the aim of making life better for the most vulnerable (you could argue that’s what makes them right wing Tories) so one can assumre when it comes to X, Y or Z the notion of reducing the gap between rich and poor is always likely to be behind other such ideals as reducing immigration, fighting crime, starting wars or whatever it might be
‘I think improvements can take place without government action.’
I don’t see how?
I think Ed Milliband is going over the top with this whole regressive/progressive thing
As an indirect tax, VAT is always going to be regressive, but I hardly noticed when they reduced it from 17.5% to 15% not so long ago so I’m inclined to agree with the head of the CBI who said it was the least worst tax to increase
I don’t agree with Tim. I think right-wing Tories can believe in making life better for the most vulnerable as much as any other kind of politician. The difference between various ideologies is not usually the end result – it’s how you get there. I would guess right-wing Tories believe their ideas would give the best results for everyone not just the rich. It’s just they don’t believe you get there by government action which is the beloved idea of the left.
I agree with Andy.
‘I think right-wing Tories can believe in making life better for the most vulnerable as much as any other kind of politician.’
They can – and I’d imagine some of the old-skool right-wingers did – Nick Winterton, Teddy Taylor, John Biffen etc – but nmot the current generation who completely dismiss the post-war egalitarian society and welfare state in favour of the Us approach of every man for himself – and if the more vulnerable do fall by the wayside they don’t see it the government’s job to prevent that
I don’t agree with Tim’s point in the way put. If a particular course would make a less well off people better off at no cost to anyone else, of course any sane person would take that course.
The real issues are where there is a cost. What cost to better off people is reasonable to achieve the outcome? And (which is linked) to what extent is the less well off person responsible for his own condition and that of his family?
I’d probably be nearer to Tim than some others on this board on those questions. But it isn’t somehow monstrous or unfeeling to take a different position to my own on such matters.
Of course the Conservatives always aimed to maximise their seats at the general election what my theory suggests though is that the Conservative leadership didn’t think they could win a majority and so did things policy and image wise which they thought would both help them win seats and also make them supportable in government by the LibDems.
As it turned out these policies and image gimmicks didn’t help them win seats but did help them get LibDem support afterwards.
As TJ and SNP have said the election result was remarkably fortuitous for Cameron. 10-20 MPs fewer and he may not have been PM, 10-20 MPs more and he may have been PM of a minority or tiny majorited government opposed by both Labour and the LibDems.
What has resulted though is as TJ says ‘a dream come true’ for Cameron.
As to tax cuts I think there’s a divison among the Conservatives between:
Populists whose priorities would be to help the working poor and those on average earnings
and
Poshos whose priorities involve IHT cuts and helping the City / big business.
Unfortunately for the Conservatives they had a posho leadership when the electoral conditions were optimum for a populist.
Quite a lot of people in the City are not posh.
Of course not but its part of the image of stockbrokers, rich bankers etc.
Privilegeds would have been a better description than Poshos.
There’s probably a geographical division for these two wings of the Conservatives as well – its hard to imagine anyone but a ‘posh’ Londoner calling for open door immigration as Boris Johnson has done.
As for the wealth gap I’m all for reducing this where it falls within the government’s remit.
For example on public sector pay I think anyone earning over the national average earnings should have their pay frozen with those earning double having proportionally rising pay cuts with maximum public sector earnings being restricted to ten times national minimum wage.
The howling guardianistas would make if this policy was applied would be a sight to see!
Likewise the Cameroons missed the opportunity to have a genuinely populist IHT policy – raise the threshold to £1m but increase the rate above that to 50% ie tax multimillionaires more to reduce taxes on non-millionaires.
And on public sector cuts a ‘populist’ Conservative would focus much more on job and pay cuts among public sector ‘executives’, ‘professionals’ and ‘managers’. However posh/privileged Cameroons are more likely to listen to the advice of said self-interested groups.
I agree with Richard’s suggestions although not the inheritance tax cut – I thought Labour actually did the right thing here by increasing the thresehold
As for the two geographical wings of the Tory party I’m not so sure
I remember in the 1980s, when the Tories won a string of seats they had never previously won since 1945 – especially in the North West
Many of these MPs, whilst fairly conservative on social and moral issues, were quite ‘wet’ on economic matters and were quite skeptical of Thatcher’s free-market agenda
The real division now seems to be on the right – between the Thatcherites on the one hand, and the Cornerstone socially conservative MPs on the other. Obviously these two groups can overlap – but collectively they comprise more than half of the Parliamentary party
I don’t know how populist either grouping is
Cornwall Tory County Cllr Jan Powell has defected to the Lib Dems, citing the Tory Council leader’s actions and lack of openness and transparency.
http://cllrjeremyrowe.wordpress.com/2011/06/17/jan-powell-joins-the-lib-dems/
So sometimes rats really DO jump onto sinking ships rather than the other way around?
You beat me to it Shaun.
Now which was that party you resigned from recently?
I should of course point out-in case Barnaby gives anyone the wrong idea-that my decision to resign from the Conservative party was entirely due to the behaviour of my own local party here in Stoke-on-Trent.
Disagree as I do with a lot of what Cameron’s government is doing on constitutional reform and on Europe, I still consider myself as a Conservative that just happens not to be a party member at the moment. I still refer to the Conservative Party as ‘we’ for example when talking to friends.
I was thinking initially of joining UKIP but then David Campbell-Bannerman’s timely defection reminded me that the only way we will get a referndum on EU withdrawel will be to change Conservative Party policy on the matter.
And now that my local party has been thoroughly crushed at the local elections in May, the offending people have all lost their seats (and in many cases are no longer active locally) and we are no longer pursuing the damaging policies we were pursuing before the election in coalition with Labour.
I’m enjoying my time outside of politics at the moment but I’m sure one day I will go back.
Wow, the same captcha code twice…
Er, logically enough, given my previous post
Just under half of North Cornwall would be used to create the DevonWall constituency tentatively named ‘Bideford and Bude”
Labour vote in Cornwall North:
1931: 1,907 votes
2010: 1,971 votes
This isn’t always Labour’s weakest seat but it’s probably been the party’s most consistently weak seat through its history of a major party.
I think the LDs will hold this but odd that Labour got a higher vote in 2005 than 1997.
I’m not sure yet whether they will. The higher Labour vote is an oddity. This could well be a candidate for being Labour’s consistently weakest seat in Great Britain.
My reasoning is based on the result of the Bude N By election.
If Labour continues to increase in support at the Lib Dems expense, then the Tories could be in with a chance.
But at the moment, my prediction would also be for a Lib Dem hold. Certainly they start off as favourites. Whether that continues, I’m not sure.
I can’t say I know this constituency intimately, but my understanding has always been that the LDs pick most of their votes up from the towns – Bude (which I must confess I haven’t been to) with its rather arty reputation strikes me as a typical LD centre, but I believe Bodmin which I have been to is strongly LD, and that Camelford, Wadebridge & Launceston (all of which I’ve also been to) are all LD centres too. Perhaps someone would correct me if any of these are no longer within the constituency. I’d surmise that the Tory vote is mainly concentrated in the most rural areas which must have a large number of electors taken as a whole. Would Stratton be any better for the Tories than Bude? I don’t see any reasons why this seat should necessarily be off limits for the Tories, although there looks to be a limit to how far the Labour vote will rise compared with other apparently similar seats, and it won’t be easy to take. But they have won it before 3 times in a row in my lifetime, so I wouldn’t rule it out.
Over the decades, this has been known to be something of a strong Liberal Democrat seat. John Pardoe and Paul Tyler both won this with large majorities at intermittent periods, while the other two Liberal MPs Peter Bessell and the current incumbent Dan Rogerson’s majorities were somewhat narrower. Something tells me Tyler’s personal vote fell away when he retired at the 2005 Election.
I made an error. Peter Bessell was Liberal MP for Bodmin. I probably got a bit confused because Tyler was once MP there as well.
This is likely to be the only LD seat in Cornwall at the next election.
The Lib Dems might actually get wiped out in Cornwall- It’s not impossible when you consider the slenderness of the majorities Rogerson George and Gilbert have.
Cornwall North 2015 Most likely:
LD 40 (-8)
Con 39.5 (-2)
Lab 10.5 (+6)
UKIP 7 (+2)
Others 3
LD hold
It would be funny if the lib dems were wiped out in the west country but held redcar and brent central
‘But at the moment, my prediction would also be for a Lib Dem hold. Certainly they start off as favourites. Whether that continues, I’m not sure.’
I’m not so sure
The Lib Dem majority has fallen in successive elections from the 13,000+ it was in 1997, to just over 2,000, with a Labour vote so remorselessly squeezed they came 4th and lost their deposit in 2010
With Lib Dem unppularity at unparalleled levels, I would have chalked this up as a comfortable Tory gain in 2015 – although obviously I hope Rogerson can prevail
Well it certainly is an unusual situation to find mtyself arguing for a Lib Dem hold and Tim arguing for a Tory gain, but still!
I hope Tim is right. But the reason the Lib Dem vote fell so much in 2005 was because of the retirement of Paul Tyler and the loss of his personal vote. Then in 2010 there was the general swing to the Tories given that it was a general election they were actually moving from opposition into government.
But I’d be surprised if the Lib Dem position could deteriorate much further here. Labour might recover somewhat-theres plenty of scope for it-and that might hit the Lib Dems. But the Tories would have to be holding their position or moving up compared to 2010 to be confident of a gain. And surely most would expect the Tory vote to be hit as well, even if only slightly.
I can see the potential for a Tory gain here next time IF and only if Labour do very well and the Lib Dems collapse more than the Tories do. But surely the liklihood must be for no change even if the Lib Dem majority were to be reduced to a thousand or so.
It is not possible that 90% + of voters will be pro-coalition here. There must be a strong tactical vote for the LDs for Labour to be that low.
The conservative vote has increased above the national increase every election since 97
I think the tories will win and not by a very small margin.
Id go
Con 43
LD 35
Lab 15
As I have found out, predicting which Lib Dems will lose is not easy. But as has been pointed out on other threads Lib Dems are tough campaigners who do a lot of groundwork in their constituencies, so in one or two of these South West battlegrounds you never know what might happen. I know I have ‘boasted’ on several threads about the Lib Dems being down to 20 in 2015 or whatever it was I said but I know now that one has to air on the side of caution- There were a few Lib Dem MPs who won in 2010 with increased majorities who had only three-figure ones beforehand- Browne, Heath, Mark Williams, Farron etc. But in South West seats like these, it is not impossible that the odd one or two might just scrape back- Perhaps people like Sanders, Harvey and maybe even Rogerson at a push.
Have had more interesting times revisiting the 1945 election results. This is the only seat in Britain which has existed continuously in some form since that time (and before), and was won by the Liberals in 1945 & by the Lib Dems in 2010. Some may know that the 1945 victor, Tom Horabin, defected to Labour during that parliament.
If I understand you correctly Barnaby, then you are forgetting Cardigan/Ceredigion
Well I was only counting constituencies with no name change….but yes I did overlook it, really. I guess it’s not a name change as such.
Prediction for 2015-
Tory- 20, 935 (45.4%, +3.7%)
Rogerson (Lib Dem)- 18, 332 (39.8%, -8.3%)
Labour- 3, 784 (8.2%, +4.0%)
Others- 2, 989 (6.4%, +0.4%)
Con gain.
Turnout- 46, 040.
Majority- 2, 603 (5.6%)
Swing- +6.0% From Lib Dem to Con.